Yesterday, he tried to show he had changed. Since his last appearance before MPs in July, he had been advised to let his hair grow longer, to soften his image, and to be a little more deferential, a little more ready to concede that mistakes were made by the once all-powerful News International over its handling of the phone-hacking crisis.

And so, after noting that it had been "newspaper allegations" back in 2009 that suggested phone hacking was more widespread than the work of a single "rogue reporter" – he could not bring himself to mention the Guardian by name – he now conceded that "the company moved into an aggressive defence too quickly" and said: "I'm trying to learn from the events over the last number of years, trying to understand why the company couldn't come to grips with the issues in as fast a way as I would have liked."

Did that reflect, perhaps, something of James's character? Or some sort of fear of the boss or the ruling family? We were not told – but what is clear is that the initial failure to investigate looks like poor judgment now. Consider this: as recently as late 2010, News International was blaming hacking on a single "rogue reporter", Clive Goodman. Yet last week it emerged that 5,800 names appeared in files kept by Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who targeted the phones of Milly Dowler, Tessa Jowell, Sienna Miller and so many more on behalf of the paper. It was proof, if further proof were needed, that hacking took place on an industrial scale.

No wonder, then, that Murdoch said "the whole company is humbled" by what had happened. As for himself, he remains his father's best chance of securing a family succession at News Corporation. So the most important goal was not to take too much blame, to walk away without immediate damage. It mattered above all that he was consistent – that he could demonstrate to MPs that it was not he who had misled them in the past.

In many ways, and over two hours and 37 minutes, Murdoch acquitted himself coolly, even at moments when he could easily have slipped up. It was Tom Watson MP who produced the surprise of the day with new evidence from Neville Thurlbeck, the former NoW chief reporter. Watson said that Thurlbeck told him he had been told by the former company lawyer Tom Crone that James Murdoch had in fact seen the critical "for Neville" email in 2008 – the evidence that showed phone hacking went beyond the actions of a single reporter. In a gripping moment, Watson read out Thurlbeck's words on the matter and invited the mogul elect to respond.

It was a moment Murdoch could easily have fluffed: here, after all, was a direct allegation that his previous statement, that he had not read the critical communication, was untrue. In fact, he switched the focus, saying Crone had previously told parliament that he, Murdoch, had not read the "for Neville" email. Perhaps not, but Murdoch did have to concede that the email "was mentioned to me as evidence". He was aware of it back then, but failed to understand its significance. Or, as he suggested, its significance was not properly explained to him.

Indeed, Murdoch had to pay something of a price for consistency. He was drawn by Watson into saying what he thought about Crone and the former NoW editor Colin Myler. Neither man, he said, gave him a complete picture of the scale of phone hacking in 2008 or thereafter – and as a result the duo gave "misleading" testimony to parliament.

It was a risky move because he knew there would be a response, and indeed later Crone retorted that Murdoch had been "disingenuous" because the News Corp boss had been told that "interceptions were authorised by the News of the World".

Above all, James Murdoch had to concede how little he knew about the reasons for the 2008 £700,000 Gordon Taylor settlement, and even the £1m settlement deal with Max Clifford in 2010. The clear conclusion, as Paul Farrelly MP put it, was that he had been "incurious" about what went on at his company.

Murdoch was aware, for example, that the opinion of Michael Silverleaf QC had been sought as regards whether to pay out to Taylor, but said he did not read the document. Nor, he added, were the most pertinent parts of it brought to his attention. Those parts, of course, included the QC's opinion that there was "a culture of illegal information access at the News of the World".

Watson tried to sum up with an over-the-top attempt to compare News Corporation to a mafia organisation. But the crucial quote came from Damian Collins when describing James Murdoch's governance of News Corp. "It may not be the mafia, but it was not Management Today," the Tory MP said. Not an ideal verdict for Murdoch, and it seems likely his stewardship of News International will be forever dogged by that long period of aggressive denials of what turned out to be the biggest scandal to hit Fleet Street in modern history.